ASPECTUAL RESTRICTION FOR FLOATING QUANTIFIERS*
Takuro Tanaka
University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the appropriate licensing conditions of
so-called floating numeral quantifiers (FNQ, henceforth) in Japanese. A typical example ofsentence with FNQ is shown in (1).
(1)‘Two students came to the office.’a.

[ Hutari-no gakusei ]-ga
2(CL)-of students - Nomofisu-ni
office-to

ki-ta
come-Pastb.

Gakusei-ga
ofisu-ni
students-Nom office-tohutariki-ta
2(CL)-of come-Past

It has been said that Japanese FNQ is compatible with object NP, passive subject, andunaccusative subject, but not with unergative subject and transitive subject(2)

FNQ from the object NPa.
Gakusei-ga [NP san-satsu-no
students-Nom
3-CL-GENb.

Gakusei-ga
students-Nomhon ]-otosyokan-ni
book-Acc library-DAT

hon-otosyokan-ni
book-Acc library-DAT

okut-tasend-pastsan-satsu okut-ta
3-CL
send-past‘A student sent three books to a library’(3)

FNQ from passive subjecta.
[NP Ni-dai-no kuruma]-ga dorobo-ni nusum-are-ta
2-CL-Gen car- Nom
thief-bysteal-PASS-PAST*For very valuable comments, I am very much grateful to the audiences at ECO5 Syntax Workshop(University of Massachusetts, Amherst) and Nanzan-Connecticut Joint Workshop on Minimalist
Syntax (Nanzan University). Special thanks go to Masatake Arimoto, Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko
Bošković, Christopher Davis, Justin Fitzpatrick, Tomohiro Fujii, Jon Gajewski, Kyle Johnson, Keiko
Murasugi, Kimiko Nakanishi, Mamoru Saito, Yael Sharvit, William Snyder, Kensuke Takita, and Susi
Wurmbrand for their helpful and thought provoking feedback. All errors are of course mine.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 199–228©2008 Takuro Tanaka

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2b.

Kuruma-ga
car-Nomdorobo-ni nidai
thief-by2-CLnusum-are-ta
steal-PASS-PAST‘Two cars were stolen by a thief’(4)

FNQ form unaccusative subjecta.
[NP Hutari-no Gakusei]-ga
2-CLStudent- Nomb.

Gakusei-ga
Student-Nom

ofisu-ni
office-toofisu-ni
office-tohutari2-CL

ki-ta
come-PAST

ki-ta
come-PAST‘Two students came to the office’(5)

FNQ from unergative subjecta.
[NP Huta-ri-no Kodomo]-ga
2-CL-Gen Children-Nom
b. * Kodomo-ta
Children-Nom

geragerato warat-ta
loudlylaugh-PAST

geragerato huta-ri
loudly2-CLwarat-talaugh-PAST‘Two children laughed loudly’(6)

FNQ from the transitive subject NP
a[NP San-nin-no gakusei]-ga
3-CL-Gen
students-Nom
b. * Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

hon-otosyokan-ni
book-Acc library-DAT

hon-o
tosyokan-ni
book-Acc library-DAT

san-nin3-CLokut-tasend-pastokut-tasend-past‘Three students sent a book to a library’This phenomenon has been studied in the previous literature on Japanese syntax, and many
analyses have been suggested (Miyagawa (1989), Yatabe (1990), Fukushima (1991a,b),(1993), Mihara (1994, 2004), Miyamoto (1996), Hamano (1997), Kawashima (1998), Ishii(1999), Takami (2001), Yamashita (2002), Nakanishi (2004), among others). The mainefforts in such previous literature went into considering a particular syntactic restriction tolicense good cases and to exclude ungrammatical ones based on the syntactic relation
between FNQ and its host NP. Such a way to study FNQ has been based on an implicit
assumption that syntactic conditions, especially constituency, require that FNQ and its host
NP have to be close to each other. Among these literature, one of the most influential
attempts can be found in Miyagawa (1989). Miyagawa’s main point is that the distribution of
FNQ is principled by some structural local condition. Based on a multiple branching
structure, Miyagawa claims that the host NP and FNQ should mutually c-command eachother, as represented in (7).

-200-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)(7)

Mutual C-command Requirement:
The NP or its trace and the numeral or its trace must c-command each other.

Miyagawa’s analysis can explain why FNQs from the subject of a passive or unaccusative
verb, and the object of a transitive verb are allowed, but FNQs from the subject of unergative
verbs and transitive subject should be prohibited, as can be seen in (8).
(8)

a.

NP1 [VP PP/Adv [VP t1 FNQ V ] ](passive, unaccusative)b.

NP[VP PP/Adv [VP NP FNQ V ] ](object of transitive)[VP PP/Adv [VP (NP)(unergative, subject of transitive)c. * NPFNQ V ] ]The subjects of passive and unaccusative are base-generated in the VP domain, and theirtraces and FNQ meet the mutual c-command relation in (8)a. The object of a transitive verb
and FNQ, of course, c-command each other in (8)b. The subject of an unergative verb or atransitive verb in (8)c, however, are base-generated outside VP, hence the host NP and FNQ
are not in a mutual c-command relation.
In this paper, I point out problematic data for current assumptions about FNQ, showing
pairs where an example with FNQ is allowed but another is not even though their syntactic
configurations seem to be the ‘same’ in terms of previous literature. A couple of analyses
would be able to explain these data which I will provide in this paper. There seems to besome problems for the previous analyses, however. FNQ shows up in various types ofenvironments, but each previous treatment argues about the licensing condition of FNQ foreach environment separately. Intuitively, FNQs should be licensed under the same principle
even though environments where they appear show variety, but little attention has been given
to a unified analysis. Based on this point of view, there is still room for improvement inprevious analyses.
2. DataIn this section, we will look at examples which would be problematic for Miyagawa’s
mutual c-command analysis. Some examples with FNQ in Japanese are grammatical but
others are not even though the FNQ or its trace, and its host NP seem to be in mutual
c-command relation.

-201-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(9)Distribution of Japanese FNQFNQ hosted by

Miyagawa’s prediction

Transitive object

Unaccusative subject
Passive subject
Transitive subject
Unergative subject

Problematic data*(19), *(22)b*(10)b, *(11)b, *(12)b*(20)
(14)b, (16)b
(13)b, (15)b

**The common property of grammatical examples which we will see in this section is a sort of“delimitedness” of event or tense. Japanese FNQ can be licensed only if it shows up in a“delimited” context. We will look at examples that show the bounded property one by one.
2.1. Stage / Individual Level Distinction
The first example is the contrast in (10)-(12). It has been said that Japanese FNQ is
compatible with stage-level predicate ((a)-cases in (10)-(12)), but not with individual-level
predicates ((b)-cases) (Harada 1976, Nishigauchi and Uchibori 1991, Okutsu 1996,
Miyamoto 1996, Mihara 2004).
(10) a.

Panda-ga
Panda-Nom

ni-tou2-CLgenkii-da
healthy-be‘Two pandas are healthy’b. * Panda-ga
Panda-Nom

ni-tou2-CL

honyurui-dai
mammal-be‘Two pandas are mammals’(11) a.

(Nishigauchi and Uchibori 1991)

Kono doubutsuen-dewa kaba-ga
This Zoo-in
hippos-Nom

san-tou byoki-da
three-CL sick-be‘Three hippos are sick in the zoo’
b. *Kono doubutsuen-dewa
This Zoo-in

kaba-gahippos-Nom

sa-touthree-CLookii
be big‘Three hippos are large in the zoo’(12) a.

Amerika-dewa
United States-in

hikouki-gaisya-ga
airlines-Nom(Mihara 2004)
mit-tsu
three-CLtsubure-ta
bankrupt-PAST‘In the United States, three flight companies became bankrupt.’b. * Amerika-dewa hikouki-gaisya-ga
United States-in airlines-Nom

mit-tsu
three-CLyuumei-dafamous-be‘In the United States, three flight companies are famous’-202-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

Following Miyagawa’s mutual c-command analysis, (10)-(12) share the same grammaticality
because both of (a) and (b) are examples of unaccusative verbs. The only difference between(a)-cases and (b)-cases is the aspectual type of predicate. For example, byoki-da ‘be sick’ in(11)a and tsubureru ‘bankrupt’ in (12)a represent temporal events with stage-level predicateswhose endpoint is delimited inherently, but, on the other hand, osu-da ‘be male’ in (11)b andyuumei-da ‘be famous’ in (12)b are individual-level predicates, which provide non-delimited
events.
2.2. Simultaneous / Successive Distinction
The next paradigms are shown in (13) and (14).
(13) a. ?* Kodomo-ga
wa-ni-natte
10-ninChildren-Nom circle-become 10-CL

odottadanced‘Ten children danced in a circle’b.

Kodomo-ga
tsugitsugi-toChildren-Nom sequence-in(Miyagawa 1989; 44)

10-nin10-CLodottadanced‘Ten children danced one after another’(14) a. ?* Gakusei-ga
Students-Nom

hon-o
4-nin
books-Acc 4-CL

kattabought‘Four students bought books’b.

Gakusei-ga
hon-o
tsugitsugi-to 4-ninStudents-Nom books-Acc sequence-in 4-CL

kattabought‘Four students bought books one after another’In these examples, the grammatical sentences and the ungrammatical ones are the cases of
FNQ from the unergative subject ((13)) and from the transitive subject ((14)), both of which
are predicted as ungrammatical by mutual c-command analysis. Again, the crucial thing here
is an aspectual property of the event. In the bad case in (13)a, ten children were dancing
simultaneously, but the good case in (13)b represents that ten children danced one by one
successively and every child danced alone in his or her dancing. As can be seen in (14)b, if
there is an aspectual adverb such as tsugitsugi-to ‘in sequence’, the successive reading is
primary and these sentences are grammatical.
2.3. Progressive Effect
Next we will look at another aspectual property of FNQ. Mihara (1994) points out thateven if the host of FNQ is an unergative subject or a transitive subject, which are notcompatible with FNQ originally, the sentences are acceptable in the progressive tense.

-203-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(15) a.

*Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

tosyokan-de go-nin
library-in
5-CL

benkyo-su-ru
studied-do-Pres‘5 students study in the library’b.

Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

tosyokan-de go-nin
library-in
5-CL

benkyo-si-teiru
studied-do-PROG(Pres)‘5 students are studying in the library’(16) a. * Gakusei-ga
kyokasyo-oStudents-Nom textbook-Acc

yo-nin4-CLyon-daread –Past

yo-nin4-CLyon-deita
read-PROG(Past)‘Four students read the textbook’b.

Gakusei-ga
Students-Nom

kyokasyo-o
textbook-Acc‘Four students were reading the textbook’
It seems natural to consider that the distinction between present or past tense and progressive
tense does not affect the local relation between a FNQ and its host NP. We need to explain
why progressive saves the FNQ construction in these cases.
2.4. Psych Verb
Object NP of transitive verb and subject NP of passive can be the host NP of FNQ as canbe seen in (17) and (18).
(17) a.

John-wa
John-Nomringo-osan-koapples-Acc 3-CL

tabe-ta
ate-Past‘John ate three apples’b.

Mary-wa
ronbun-oyon-hon kai-ta
Mary-Nom papers-Acc 4-CL
write-Past‘Mary wrote four papers’(18) a.

Ringo-gasan-koApples-Nom 3-CL

taber-are-ta
eat-Passive-Past‘Three apples were eaten’b.

Ronbun-ga
Papers-Acc

yon-hon kak-are-ta
4-CL
write-Passive-Past‘Four papers were written’-204-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

However, psych verbs, for example, shinziru ‘believe,’ nikumu ‘hate,’ utagau ‘suspect,’ are
not compatible with FNQ even when the host NP is an object NP ((19)) or a passive subject((20)).
(19) a. * John-wa
John-Nomtomodachi-o soredemo san-nin shinzita
friends-Acc still
3-CLbelieved‘John still believed his three friends’
b. * Gakusei-ga kyoju-oStudent-Nom professor-Acc

soredemo go-nin
still
5-CL

nikundahated‘A student still hated 5 professors’(20) a. * Kyouju-ga
seito-nifuta-ri nikum-are-ta
Professors-Nom student-by 2-CL
hate-PASS-past‘Two professors were hated by a student’
b. * Soko-ni ita gakusei-ga
keikan-ni san-nin utagaw-are-ta
there-in be students-Nom officer-by 3-CL
suspect-PASS-past‘Three students who were there were suspected by a officer’
As for the psych verbs, it has been said that there are two types of variations:
Experiencer Subject (ES) type, and Experiencer Object (EO) type (Jackendoff (1972),
Grimshaw (1990), Levin (1993), Belletti and Rizzi (1988), Zubizarreta (1992), Pesetsky(1995), among others).
(21) Two types of psych verbs (Levin 1993)
a. Experiencer-Subject Psych Verbs (ES)like, love, dislike, trust, worship, dread, envy, fear, hate, loathe, regret, bother(for), cry (for), delight (in), despair (of ), marvel (at), suffer (from), thrill (to), ...
b. Experiencer-Object Psych Verbs (EO)
amaze, amuse, anger, annoy, bore, bother, confuse, delight, disgust, encourage,enrage, excite, frighten, horrify, irritate, please, puzzle, surprise, terrify, threaten,
worry, ...
(22) are examples of FNQ from object NP of psych verbs; komaraseta ‘embarrassed’ in (22)a is EO type, and kowagatta ‘feared’ in (22)b is ES type. Only EO type is compatible withFNQ as shown in (22)a, while mutual c-command analysis predicts that both of them should
be grammatical.
(22) a.

Kare-no furumai-ga
gakusei-ogo-ninhe-of
behaviour-Nom students-Acc 5-CL
‘His behavior embarrassed five students’-205-

komarasesta
embarrassed(EO)

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

b. * Kodomotachi-wa hanashi-o itsu-tsu
Children-Nom
stories-Acc 5-CL

kowagatta
feared(ES)‘Children feared five stories’
3. Theoretical Background3.1. Syntactic Structure
In previous literature, three types of analyses for syntactic structure of floating quantifier
have been suggested.
(23) a.

All the students have gone home.

b.

The students have all gone home.

(24) a. Rightward Movement (Postal (1974))

c.

b. Stranding (Sportiche (1988))

Adverbial (Dowty and Brodie (1984), Brisson (1998), Bobaljik (2003), a.o.)In the early stage of generative syntax, it was argued that floating quantifier is base generated
in the host-NP, and it moves to right (Postal (1974), Maling (1976), Baltin (1978)).
(25) Rightward Movement Analysis[IP [NP ti the men ] [VP alli left] ]-206-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

Following this rightward movement, however, the trace of the floating quantifier cannot be
c-commanded, which give rise to the violation of Proper Binding Condition.
(26) Proper Binding Condition (Fiengo (1977), May (1977), Saito (1989))
Traces must be bound.
To avoid this problem, Sportiche (1988) suggests that floating quantifier does not move at all,and it is a stranded element of movement of its host NP. He follows VP-internal subject
hypothesis, which argues that the subject NP is base generated in VP, and it moves up to the
spec-IP in a stage of the derivation (Koopman and Sportiche (1991), Kuroda (1988), Fukui
and Speas (1986), Kitagawa (1986), among others). He suggests that thesubject NP and VP
have a relation of small clause, which is represented as Vn. Following his analysis, thederivation of FQ would be shown as (27).
(27) Stranding Analysis (Sportiche 1988, slightly modified)a.
[IP [ All the children]i [Vn have [ ti ] [VP seen the movie ] ] ]b.

[IP [ The children]i [Vn have [all ti ] [VP seen the movie ] ] ]Following this analysis, FNQ is base-generated next to its host NP, and it does not require theadditional semantic interpretation rule to connect the FNQ and its host NP, which has beensuggested by researchers who argue that a FNQ is base generated in the position which is
pronounced without any movement (Nakamura (1983)). Sportiche’s analysis is not based onrightward movement, and violation for proper binding condition does not take place. Besides,
the fact that the position of FQ is mainly the left periphery of VP should be a natural
implication the stranding analysis.
Some researchers have suggested an alternative analysis to the adNominal one: theadverbial analysis1. Following this point of view, there is no stage where FNQ is attached toits host NP directly, and the FNQ is base generated in preverbal position (see Nakamura(1983), Dowty and Brodie (1984), Akiyama (1994), Junker (1995), Hoeksema (1996),
Doetjes (1997), Brisson (1998), Takami (2001), Bobaljik (2003), among many others, for thispoint of view). Takami (2001), for example, provides the following example in (28)b which
would be counterexaple for Miyagawa’s (1989) adNominal analysis.
(28) a. ?* Gakusei-ga hon-ostudent-Nom book-Acc

yo-ninkat-ta.
four-CL buy-PAST‘Four students bought a book / books’

1This type of analysis for Japanese FQ has been challenged by some researchers. For example,
Fitzpatrick (2006) argues that Japanese FQs are adnominal and A-bar related. He claims that bothkinds of FQs, adnominal type and adverbial type, exist in human language, and they are
distinguishable within and across languages. Adverbial FQs are associated with A-moved NPs, andadnominal FQs are related to A-bar moved NPs.

-207-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2b.

Gakusei-ga {sore / sono hon}-o yo-nin
kat-ta.
student-Nom {it / that book}-Acc four-CL buy-PAST‘Four students bought it / that book’(Takami 2001:139)

Takami argues that FNQs in preverbal position must provide some new information,
following the traditional point of view that, in Japanese, the most important information (ornew information) must appear in an immediately preverbal position (Kuno 1978). Based on
this assumption, Takami (2001) argues that the distribution of FNQs does not depend on thelocality condition, but rather on the following two pragmatic conditions: an NP can host an
FNQ only when the NP can serve as a Theme of the sentence, and an FNQ must obey the
information structure of Japanese sentences. In (28)a,b, the FNQ is interpreted as the mostimportant information, being in a pre-verbal position. The difference in acceptability between
the two sentences comes from the information status of the object. In (28)a, the object is anindefinite NP, which is interpreted to convey new information. Thus, both of the object NP
hon ‘book’ and the FNQ yo-nin ‘four-CLperson’ should take significant information in thesentence, but there is a conflict between the object and the FNQ as to which one should be thefocus of the sentence. In contrast, in (28)b, the object is a definite NP, which contains lessimportant information. (28)a,b share the same configuration with respect to the mutual
c-command relation between FNQ and its host NP. If only syntactic locality plays a crucialrole to license FNQ as Miyagawa (1989)’s analysis, the prediction would be that (28)a and b
share same acceptability. This is not the case, however.
Based on the adverbial analysis, a lot of counterarguments against Sportiche’s type of
stranding analysis. Firstly, Bobaljik (2003) points out that floating quantifiers which are
hosted by a passive subject and a unaccusative subject are not allowed.
(29) Passive/Unaccusativea. * [ The boys ]i were arrested [ all ti ]b. * [ The boys ]i have arrived [ all ti ](passive)(unaccusative)(Bobaljik (2003))

The stranding analysis predicts that (29)a,b are grammatical because a subject NP and a FNQ
are base-generated in VP, and onlysubject NP moves up to the spec-TP, which is the same
way as Sportiche’s analysis.
Secondly, the positions for FNQs are not only right before the verb. FNQs can appear inpositions for adverbs, as shown in (30). The stranding analysis cannot explain this
distribution of FNQs.
(30) The children would <all> have <all> been <all> doing that.

-208-(Baltin (1995))

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

3.2. Adverbial Quantification
We investigated three kinds of analyses for syntactic configuration for floating
quantifiers in the previous section. Based on the evidences in (29) and (30), the adverbial
analysis seems to be plausible. However, if we follow the adverbial analysis, we should
consider a puzzling problem about quantification; how do “adverbs” quantify over individual
variables? In the cases of Japanese floating numeral quantifiers, they should quantify
individual variables because of the classifier. Consider the following example.
(31) Gakusei-ga
hon-oStudents-Nom book-Acc

tosyokan-ni
library-Dat

san-satsu
3-CL

okut-tasend-Past‘A student sent three books to a library.’
The classifier -satsu ‘volume’ is just for the number of books. Japanese classifiers areavailable only for a particular type of individuals.
(32) Japanese Classifiersa.
san-satsu-no hon‘three books’(for books)(for small animals)b.

san-hiki-no usagi‘three rabbits’c.

san-tou-no zou‘three elephants’ (for big animals)d.

san-ken-no ie‘three houses’(for houses)e.

san-dai-no kuruma‘three cars’(for motor vehicle)f.

san-nin-no gakusei‘three students’(for people)

However, if we suppose that Japanese FNQs are adverbs, they cannot quantify individual
variables; adverbs quantify over event variables.
To solve this dilemma, Nakanishi (2004) argues that Japanese FNQs are adverbs which
are base-generated in the surface position without any movement operation. The FNQ is not
an adNominal quantifier which quantifies individual variables over, but it is an adverbial
quantifier for event variables. Nakanishi’s points are summarized as in (33).
(33) Nakanishi (2004)a.
Japanese FNQs are subject to the Monotonicity Constraints (Schwarzschild(2002)).
b.

Adverbial FNQs quantify over individual variables via Homomorphism Mapping.

c.

A Measure Function μ combines an FNQ with a predicate.

Firstly, Nakanishi argues that Japanese FNQs are subject to monotonicity (Schwarzschild-209-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(2002)) to explain the following data. The quantifier for amount of water, san-rittoru ‘threeliters,’ is compatible with floating pattern in (34)b, but degree of water, san-do ‘three degree,’does not allow its floating variant as shown in (35)b.
(34) ‘Three liters of water spilled on the table.’a.
[ san-rittoru-no mizu ]-gatukue-nouede
3-liters-of
water-Nomtable-onb.

Mizu-gawater-Nomtukue-nouede
table-onsan-rittoru
3-liters(35) ‘Three degree water spilled on the table.’a.
[ san-do-no mizu]-gatukue-nouede
3-degree-of water-Nom table-onb. * Mizu-ga
tukue-nouede san-dowater-Nom table-on
3-degreekobore-ta
spill-Pastkobore-ta
spill-Pastkobore-ta
spill-Pastkobore-ta
spill-Past

A crucial difference between volume and degree is monotonic property. The notion ofmonotonicity is suggested by Link (1983), and refined by Schwarzschild (2002). Link points
out that plural count nouns are cumulative just like mass nouns.
(36) a.
b.

If a is water and b is water then the sum of a and b is water.
If the animals in this camp are horses, and the animals in that camp are horses,
then the animals in both camps are horses.

Based on these examples, Link proposes to capture the similarities between the twomodel-theoretically using lattice structures. Assuming that the denotation of nominal
predicates is a set of (singular and/or plural) individuals, it is possible to express the
cumulative reference of mass nouns as well as of plural count nouns by ordering theindividuals in the extension, as in lattice structures. A lattice is a partially ordered set, i.e. a
set of objects ordered by a reflexive, anti-symmetric and transitive relation. For example, takea set containing elements in the figure in (37), where x, y, and z are atomic individuals, isan individual sum operator, and the lines indicate the ordering part-of relation ≤.
(37) Monotonic lattice structure-210-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)(38) a.
b.
c.

Singular count nouns: [[ dog ]] = {x, y, z}
Plural count nouns:[[ dogs ]] = {x, y, z, x∪Iy, x∪I z, y∪I z, x∪I y∪I z}
Mass nouns:[[ water ]] = {x, y, z, x∪I y, x∪I z, y∪I z, x∪I y∪I z}

Suppose that x, y, and z are water, then their sums (x∪Iy, x∪I z, y∪I z, x∪I y∪I z) are also
water. In this sense, the mass noun water has the cumulative reference property. In thedenotation of water, that is, { x, y, z, x∪Iy, x∪I z, y∪I z, x∪I y∪I z }, members can be orderedby the part-of relation (e.g. x∪Iy is a subpart of another member x∪I y∪I z). Thus, theextension of a mass noun can be modeled as a lattice of individuals.
Based on such an assumption, we can distinguish volume from degree in terms ofmonotonicity.
(39) Schwarzschild (2002)a.
Monotonicity
A property is monotonic if it tracks part-whole relations. e.g. If a quantity of oil
has a certain volume, then every proper subpart of it will have a lower volume andsuperparts will have larger volumes. i.e., volume is monotonic.
b.
Non-monotonicity
e.g. If the oil has a certain temperature, there is no reason to expect that properparts of it will have lower temperatures. i.e., temperature is non-monotonic
Volume of water shows the monotonic property, and it follows the Monotonicity Constrain tolicense Japanese FNQ. On the other hand, temperature of water is not monotonic. This is why(34)b is acceptable, but (35)b is not.
Nakanishi’s second point in (33) is adverbial quantification over individual variables.
Nakanishi suggests the homomorphism function h, which maps event variables to theircorrespondent individual variables.
(40) Homomorphism h∀h ∀x,y ∈De [h(x∪x y) = h(x) ∪x h(y)]In Japanese, adverbial FNQs can not quantify event variables directly because of classifiers,
but such quantification is possible indirectly via the homomorphism function. The
homomorphism function h in (40) maps event variables into individual variables. This system
is based on a basic assumption that an individual entity corresponds with an event. For
example, in (31), an single sending event corresponds with a book, and three sending events
include three books. Intuitively, in this case, e1, e2 , and e3 are mapped into book1 , book2 ,and book3 , respectively. (41) shows the quantification via homomorphism mapping.

-211-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(41) Quantification via Homomorphism hJapanese FNQ, which is an adverb, quantifies over event variables directly, and individual
variables indirectly through homomorphism mapping.
The last point in (33) is a measure function µ. Measure Phrases have a wide distribution
in both English and Japanese, as illustrated in (42).
(42) Englisha.
two feet longb. two feet longerc.
two feet of roped. two feet awaye.
walk two feet

Japanesea.
ni meetoru nagaib.
ni meetoru naga-sugiru
c.
roopu ni meetoru
d.
ni meetoru hanaretee.
ni meetoru aruku‘two meters longer’‘two meters too long’‘two meters of rope’‘two meters away’‘walk two meters’

Schwarzschild (2002) proposes that, despite the seemingly cross-categorial syntactic
distribution of MPs, all instances of MPs have exactly the same semantics. Assuming that
Measure Phrases have a uniform semantics, he argues that a measure phrase is a predicate ofscalar intervals (Schwarzschild 2002:231). Based on the assumption, Nakanishi proposes tospell out the denotation of Measure Phrases as in (43), where mp stands for the responding
formal predicate in Predicate Logic (e.g. two-feet).
(43) [[ MP ]] = λId. mp(I)( <d, t> )A measure function µ is a measurement scheme that is obtained by examining a relation
between an MP and the element to which the Measure Phrase applies. Nakanishi also
introduces a measure function µ, which is a measurement scheme (e.g. volume, temperature,depth, etc.) that is obtained by examining a relation between an MP and the element to which-212-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

the MP applies. For example, in two feet of rope, since two feet specifies how long therelevant rope is, the measure function is “µ: spatial-length.” Given such a view, semantics ofmeasure phrases with different types of predicates can be described in the same way.
(44) Measure Function µ (Cartwright (1975), Schwarzschild (2002))[[ µ ]] = λD<d,t>. λP<σ, …, <τ, t>>: MON(µ, P). λev. P(e) ∧ D(µ(e))(45) a.
b.

[[ two feet of rope ]] = λxe. rope(x) ∧ two-feet(µ(x)), where µ: spatial-length[[ walk two feet ]]= λxe. walk(x) ∧ two-feet(µ(x)), where µ: spatial-length

The syntactic structure of measure phrase and µ is shown in (46), which is suitable to capture
the cross-categorial nature of MPs. In (46), µ first combines with a Measure Phrase that is apredicate of an interval, and then applies to the measured individual x.
(46) two feet of rope[[ two feet of rope ]](= !xe. rope(x)"two-feet(length(x)))[[ two feet µ ]](= !Pet: MON(µ, P). !xe. P(x) " two-feet(µ(x)))

NP
rope

[[ two feet ]](= !Id. Two-feet(I))[[ µ ]](= !D<d,t>. !P<#, É, <$, t>>:MON(µ, P). !ev.P(e) " D(µ(e)))

3.3. Aspectual Functions of Arguments
As we have seen in section 2, the common property of grammatical examples with FNQ
is a sort of “boundedness.” We need reflect this intuition to the syntactic structure of FNQ. In
previous literature, some functional phrases for aspectual properties of arguments have beensuggested. Let us survey such studies briefly.
The relation of the argument structure and delimitednes is surveyed by Tenny (1994).
She suggests a measuring-out constraint where internal arguments, but not external ones, can‘measure out the event’ to which the verb refers.
(47) The Non-Measuring Constraint on External Arguments
An external argument cannot participate in measuring out or delimiting the event
described by a verb. An external argument cannot be a measure, a path, or a terminus.
(Tenny 1994:83)(48) Measuring-Out Constraint on Direct Internal Arguments(i) The direct internal argument of a simple verb is constrained so that it undergoes no-213-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

necessary internal motion or change, unless it is motion or change which ‘measuresout the event’ over time (where ‘measuring out’ entails that the direct argument
plays a particular role in delimiting the event).
(ii) Direct internal arguments are the only overt arguments which can ‘measure out theevent.’(iii) There can be no more than one measuring-out for any event described by a verb.
(Tenny 1994:11)
To capture such a relation between arguments and their aspectual property, functional phrases
for aspect have been suggested (Borer (1994), Travis (1994), Kratzer (1996), Ritter andRosen (1998), Arad (1999))(22) a.
b.

[AspP NPi [AspP’ ASP [VP ... ti ... ] ] ][TP [F(initiation) [VP V [F( −delimit) [VP ... ] ] ] ] ](cf. Borer 1994)(Ritter & Rosen 1998)

Ritter and Rosen (1998) suggest that there are two aspectual phrases: higher and lower
phrases, which correspond to AgrS and AgrO, respectively. The higher aspectual phrase
assigns a “initiator” of a event to the external argument, and the lower aspectual phrase
assigns a “delimiter” of the event to the internal argument. In a sentence John ate an apple,
the external argument (John) is the initiator of the eating event, and the internal argument (anapple ) is the delimiter of the event. An animate agent noun phrase starts an event, and when
you finish an apple, the eating event is over.
4. Analyses
Now we will investigate the appropriate condition for FNQs in Japanese. As we haveseen, the acceptability of FNQ is different even in a paradigm where two sentences seem toshare the same syntactic configurations. I suggest here, however, that structural identification
based on the property of predicate (transitive, unaccusative, unergative, and passive) is notenough to discuss the structure of sentences with FNQ. Aspectual property gives rise todifferent structures even though the types of predicate would be the same. Now I will suggest
the appropriate analysis for FNQ licensing from an aspectual point of view.
4.1. Delimit Phrase
As I briefly mentioned in section 2, the common property of grammatical examples withFNQ is a sort of “delimitedness.” Here I suggest that Japanese FNQs should be related todelimited properties (event or tense). Japanese FNQ can be licensed only if it shows up in a“delimited” context.
For example, events which are described with individual-level predicates are notdelimited: it does not imply endpoint of an event inherently. On the other hand, stage-level-214-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

predicates provide an event which is delimited with a particular endpoint. The latter iscompatible with Japanese FNQ because delimitedness is important property to license FNQ.
Simultaneous vs. successive distinction relates with delimitedness. Look back again to
our example in (13) (repeated as (49) here).
(49) a. ?* Kodomo-ga
wa-ni-natte 10-ninChildren-Nom circle-become 10-CL

odottadanced‘Ten children danced in a circle’b.

Kodomo-ga
tsugitsugi-toChildren-Nom sequence-in(Miyagawa 1989; 44)

10-nin10-CLodottadanced‘Ten children danced one after another’The only difference between the weird (49)a and the grammatical (49)b is that the distinction
between wa-ni-natte ‘in a circle’ and tsugitsugi-to ‘one after another.’ The former has nothing
to do with delimitedness and the FNQ 10(-nin) does not delimit anything in the event ofchildren’s dancing. However, with the latter adverb tsugitsugi-to ‘one after another,’ the FNQ
10-nin delimits a sequence of dancing events. There is a dancing event for the first child, andnext, second child make a dance, then third, forth, and so on. The sequence of dancing events
comes to end by tenth child. Here, 10-nin delimits the whole dancing events.
In the case of progressive with -teiru in (15)b (repeated here as (50)b), propositions
describe ongoing events.
(50) a. * Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

tosyokan-delibrary-in

go-nin benkyo-suru
5-CL studied-do‘5 students study in the library’b.

Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

tosyokan-de go-nin
library-in
5-CL

benkyo-sit-eiru
studied-do-PROG (Pres)‘5 students are studying in the library’Japanese progressive with –teiru corresponds to be V-ing in English. Progressive in English
has been argued to describe a limited duration, which means that the described event takes
place in a certain limited period (Leech 1971). Progressive aspect of activity,
accomplishment, and achievement verbs implies that an described event will stop after acertain period. Japanese –teiru has similar aspectual property. For example, aspectual
expression “now” with contrastive focus is compatible with progressive tense, but it is notwith non-progressive. (51)b implies that John is studying just right now, but he seem to stop
studying later on.

-215-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(51) a.

John-gatosyokan-destudents-Nom library-in(*ima-WA)
benkyo-suru
now-FOCUS study-do‘John studies in the library (NOW)’b.

John-gastudents-Nom

tosyokan-delibrary-in(ima-WA)
now-FOCUS

benkyo-sit-eiru
study-do-PROG (Pres)‘John is studying in the library (NOW)’
Based on the assumption that Japanese FNQ is licensed in the delimited context, I will
suggest that there is a functional phrase to check the delimitedness.
(52) The head of a functional head of DelP (Delimit Phrase) licenses FNQ.
Here I suggest that there are two structural DelPs: higher and lower positions. Lower DelP is
between VP and vP. This DelP licenses the delimitedness property of the internal argument.
The relation of the argument structure and delimittednes is surveyed by Tenny (1994) in (47)and (48). She suggests a measuring-out constraint where internal arguments, but not externalones, can ‘measure out the event’ to which the verb refers. Measuring-out constraint plays animportant role in interpretation when the predicate is not stative or there is an internalargument which delimits the event. This aspectual property of the internal argument
motivates the lower DelP.
On the other hand, the higher DelP is between vP and TP (cf. Travis (1994), Kratzer(1996), Arad (1999)). It is a functional phrase which would exist only if interpretation of the
proposition has some delimiting aspectual property other than delimitedness provided by aninternal argument. In other words, the higher DelP is provided by the interpretation. For
example, in our examples in (11) (repeated as (53) here), both of the two predicates, ‘be sick’and ‘be big,’ are unaccusative, and their syntactic configurations are basically same. Theirinterpretations with respect to aspectual property gives rise to the difference: ‘be sick’ is astage-level predicate, and ‘be big’ is a individual-level predicate. Only the former describes adelimited event, and its structure contains the higher DelP, based on its interpretation.
(53) a.

Kono doubutsuen-dewa kaba-ga
This Zoo-in
hippos-Nom

san-tou byoki-da
three-CL sick-be‘Three hippos are sick in the zoo’b. * Kono doubutsuen-dewa kaba-ga
This Zoo-in
hippos-Nom

sa-touookii
three-CL be big sick-be‘Three hippos are large in the zoo’
The configuration based on the assumption is represented as below.

-216-(Mihara 2004)

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)(54) Structure with two DelPs
TP
Subj

T’
DelP

T
Del’

vP
tsubj

Del
v’

DelP

v
Del’

VP
Obj

Del
V

The difference in grammaticality in (28) (repeated here as (55)) supports this analysis. These
sentences are examples of FNQ from transitive subject, but the grammaticality of thesesentences is different depending on the definiteness of the object NP; definite NP is
compatible with FNQ in (55)b, but indefinite NP is not in (55)a.
(55) a. ?* Gakusei-ga hon-ostudent-Nom book-Acc

yo-ninkat-ta.
four-CL buy-PAST‘Four students bought a book / books’b.

Gakusei-ga {sore / sono hon}-o yo-nin
kat-ta.
student-Nom {it / that book}-Acc four-CL buy-PAST‘Four students bought it / that book’(Takami 2001:139)

Both of the sentences contain a object NP, which provide the lower DelP based on Tenny’s
measuring constraint. However, the interpretations of these sentences about aspectual
property of delimitedness are different. In (55)a, the indefinite NP does not describe whatkind of books and how many books are bought. Under this interpretation, the buying events
by four students are separated and they have nothing to do with each other, which means thatthey are not interpreted as a series of events. The notion of “delimitedness” requires that thesame kind of events should take place in sequence, but (55)a does not have such aninterpretation. It causes that the structure of (55)a does not contain the upper DelP. In (55)b,on the other hand, the definite NP refers a particular book. This definite NP give rise to “insequence” interpretation, and the number of buying event is delimited by the FNQ, which isfour. In this case a series of buying books is delimited, and there is the upper DelP. This
analysis is supported by an example such as (56), where the object NP is definite, but it does

-217-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

not give rise to “in sequence” interpretation. There is only one buying event, and theinterpretation is not delimited by the number of people who buy a house.
(56)* Gakusei-ga [ sono ie ]-oyo-nin kat-ta.
student-Nom that house-Acc four-CL buy-PAST‘Four students bought that house’

Different from (55)b, (56) is ungrammatical even though the object is a definite NP. It isbecause the interpretation is not delimited, and its structure does not contain the upper DelP
which license FNQ.
Notice that the upper DelP is not provided by an overt lexical element, but it comes frominterpretation of delimitedness. Chances are that it can be available a situation where (55)abecomes grammatical because of a pragmatic effect. For example, suppose a situation where
you are working at a bookstore, and right before you closed the store four students rushed
into your store to buy particular books. Because of the business, you closed the store 10
minute later than usual. In that situation, the sentence in (55)a can be acceptable without any
particular aspectual adverb.
(57) A:B:

Why did you close your store 10 minute late today?
[Gakusei-ga
hon-o
yo-nin kat-ta]
kara.
students-Nom books-Acc 4-CL
buy-Past because‘It is because four students bought books’

In the case of (57), the buying events take place in a short time, and the series of events canbe delimited by the number of students: four. In that case there is the upper DelP without any
aspectual adverb in its specifier position. In out-of-the-blue contexts, a default interpretationof (57)a is an unbounded interpretation; no particular endpoint of buying events in your store
on the day is presupposed inherently, and there is no restriction about potential number ofstudents who come to your bookstore. In such a default interpretation, there is nodelimitedness, leading that the DelP is absence and FNQ is not allowed. The contrast between(55)a and (57) reveals that the DelP is not given by an aspectual adverb, but delimitedness
interpretation.
4.2. Presupposition of Delimitedness
Based on the Nakanishi’s explanation with the Homomorphism function, I will provide
an explanation for the paradigms addressed in section 2. The data show that Japanese FNQs
are compatible with the distributive reading, where each individual event (which can bemapped onto a particular individual) takes place separately. In other words, event variables
should not combine with each other to give rise to the group reading. To reflect this basic
assumption on the formalized representation, I suggest the following restriction for a measurefunction µ: event arguments should be atomic.

-218-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)(58) [[ µ ]] = λD<d,t>. λP<σ, …, <τ, t>>:MON(µ, P). λev:ATOM(e, P). P(e) ∧ D(µ(e))
The atomicity is defined as shown in (59).
(59) ATOMic property (Krifka (1998))∀X⊆UP ∀x∈UP [ATOMP(x, X) ↔ X(x) ∧ ¬∃y∈UP[y <P x ∧ P(y) ]]The atomicity of event arguments should be satisfied in a stage of derivation. Here let us
suppose that a covert head of the Delimit Phrase satisfies this presupposition.
.
(60) Covert head of Delimit Phrase[[ Del ]] = λQvt. Q s.t. MON(µ, Q) ∧ ATOM(e, Q)
If interpretation provides DelP in the structure, the presupposition of event arguments for themeasure function µ can be satisfied. However, if there is no DelP because of undelimited
interpretation, the presupposition is not satisfied and give rise to presupposition failure. For
example, structure and interpretation of (13)b (repeated as (61)) are represented as (62) and
(63).
(61)

Kodomo-ga
Children-NOM

tsugitsugi-tosequence-in

10-nin10-CL‘Ten children danced one after another’
(62)

-219-

odottadancedNanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(63)[[ dance ]] = λev. *dance(e)[[ ten-CL ]] = λId. ten-individuals(I)[[ µVP ]] = λD<d,t>.λP<v,t>:MON(µ,P). λev:ATOM(e,P). P(e) ∧ D(µ(e))[[ VP ]] = λev. *dance(e) ∧ 10-individuals(cardinality-of-individuals(h(e)))[[ Voice ]] = λye. λev. Agent(e)=y[[ Voice’ ]] = λye. λev. Agent(e)=y ∧ *dance(e) ∧ 10-ind.(card.-of-ind.(h(e)))[[ NP ]] = CHILDREN(type e (kind))[[ VoiceP ]] = λye. λev. Ag(e)=y ∧ *dance(e) ∧10-ind.(card.-of-ind.(h(e)))(CHILDREN)(Derived Kind Predication (DKP))
λev. ∃x [∪child(x) Ag(e)=x ∧ *dance(e) ∧ 10-ind.(card.-of-ind. (h(e)))][[ TP ]] = ∃e∃x [∪child(x) ∧ Ag(e)=x ∧ *dance(e) ∧ 10-ind.(card.-of-ind.(h(e)))]2.

5. Implementation
Based on the assumption which we suggested in the previous section, we will see theimplementations to explain each data with FNQ.
5. 1. Stage / Individual-level Predicate
Kratzer (1995) argues that individual level predicates do not contain event variables,
based on (64).
(64) a. *When Mary knows French, she knows it well.
b.

When Mary speaks French, she speaks it well.

c.

* When Mary speaks French, she knows it well.

d. * When Mary knows French, she speaks it well.
To explain the data, Kratzer suggests that individual level predicate know does not contain
event variables for its argument. She also suggests the following restriction for quantification.
(65) Prohibition against Vacuous Quantification (Kratzer (1995))
For every quantifier Q, there must be a variable x such that Q binds an occurrence of x
in both its restrictive clause and its nuclear scope.
Assuming that a when-clause introduces the quantifier always, the sentences in (64) are
expressed by tripartite structures consisting of always, a restrictive clause, and a nuclear
scope, as in (66) (Heim 1982 for tripartite structures).
2This compositional semantics follows Event Identification (Kratzer (1996)).
fg→ h<e, <v, t>> <v, t><e, vt>[[ h ]] = λx.λe. f(x)(e) ∧ g(e), when [[ f ]] ∈ D<e, vt> and [[ g ]] ∈ Dvt-220-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)(66)

a. * Always [know(Mary, French)] [know-well(Mary, Frnch)]b.
Always [speak(Mary, French,l)] [speak-well(Mary, Fench,l)]c. * Always [speak(Mary, French,l)] [know-well(Mary, French)]d. * Always [know(Mary, French)] [speak-well(Mary, French,l)]Only (66)b satisfies (65). The event argument l is bound by always both in restrictor andmatrix. If there is no event variable, it is not compatible with FNQ because of the restriction
for event delimitedness by DelP. Structures of (67) (=(10)) are represented as (68).
(67) a.

Panda-ga
Panda-Nom

ni-tou2-CLgenkii-da
healthy-be‘Two pandas are healthy’b. * Panda-ga
Panda-Nom

ni-tou2-CL

honyurui-dai
mammal-be‘Two pandas are mammals’(Nishigauchi and Uchibori 1991)(68) a. Structure of (67)ab. Structure of (67)bIn (68)b with individual predicate be mammal, there is no DelP because of the interpretation.
The presupposition of µ is not satisfied. This is why the structure in (68)b is not acceptable.
5. 2. Progressive
Next, we will look back to the examples that show that progressive morphemes –teiru(present) and –teita (past) save the grammaticality of sentences with FNQ in (15) and (16)(repeated as (69) and (70) for our convenience).
(69) a. *Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

tosyokan-delibrary-in

go-nin5-CL‘5 students study in the library’-221-

benkyo-su-ru
studied-do-Pres

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2b.

Gakusei-ga
students-Nom

tosyokan-delibrary-in

go-nin5-CLbenkyo-si-teiru
studied-do-PROG(Pres)‘5 students are studying in the library’(70) a. *Gakusei-ga
kyokasyo-oStudents-Nom textbook-Acc

yo-nin4-CLyon-daread –Past

yo-nin4-CLyon-deita
read-PROG(Past)‘Four students read the textbook’b.

Gakusei-ga
kyokasyo-oStudents-Nom textbook-Acc‘Four students were reading the textbook’
Several researchers have argued about the configuration of –teiru (McClure 1993, Shirai
1997, Ogihara 1998, Kusumoto 2003, among others). The most accepted consensus is that–teiru is lexically decomposed into –te (or –de when the stem of the verb ends with a voiced
sound) for progressive aspect, and morphemes of –i-ru (be-present) or –i-ta (be-past). Suchan overt aspectual element provides the higher DelP between TP and vP. Following theseassumptions, I suggest that -iru or -ita appears in the head-TP, and the progressive morpheme–te is the trigger for the delimitedness interpretation. The delimited interpretation gives rise to
the upper DelP and the progressive morpheme –te shows up at the head of the DelP. It is why(b)-cases in (69) and (70) with the progressive morpheme is grammatical.
(71) a. *No overt aspectual morpheme ((69)a)b. –te delimits an studying event ((69)b)

In ungrammatical (a)-cases, however, there is no higher DelP, and the presupposition of µ
cannot be satisfied, which bring about ungrammatical configuration. This analysis means that
sentences with present / past tense and ones with present / past progressive do not share thesame syntactic structure actually; the progressive morpheme gives rise to the functional
category DelP.

-222-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

5. 3. Psych Verbs
Psych verbs describe a state without any particular endpoint of the event, not a
temporally delimited event. Even if there is an internal argument of psych verb, it cannot
delimit an event which the verb describes. The structure does not involve lower DelP where
the presupposition of the measure function µ is satisfied, even if a psych verb contains aninternal argument.
(72) a. *John-wa
John-Nomtomodachi-o soredemo san-nin shinzita
friends-Acc still
3-CLbelieved‘John still believed his three friends’
b. *Gakusei-ga kyoju-oStudent-Nom professor-Acc

soredemo go-nin
still
5-CL

nikundahated‘A student still hated 5 professors’(73) a. *Kyouju-ga
seito-nifuta-ri nikum-are-ta
Professors-Nom student-by 2-CL
hate-PASS-past‘Two professors were hated by a student’
b. * Soko-ni ita gakusei-ga
keikan-ni san-nin utagaw-are-ta
there-in be students-Nom officer-by 3-CL
suspect-PASS-past‘Three students who were there were suspected by a officer’(74) a. Structure of (72)a (=(19)a)b. Structure of (73)a (=(20)a)This explains why sentences in (72) (=(19)), which are examples of FNQ from object, areungrammatical. In the subject-oriented cases in (73) (=(20)), there is no overt aspectual
expression and its interpretation is not delimited. It means that there is no higher DelP in the-223-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

structures of (73) first of all. Data in (73) are passive whose subject is base generated inside
VP. Internal arguments of psych verbs do not delimit the event and there is no lower DelP
either.
EO type psych verbs and ES type ones show different acceptability with respect to FNQ;
object-oriented FNQ is allowed with EO type psych vertbs ((22)a, repeated in (75)a), but notwith ES type((22)b, repeated in (75)b).
(75) a.

Kare-no furumai-ga
gakusei-ogo-ninhe-of
behaviour-Nom students-Acc 5-CL

komarasesta
embarrassed(EO)‘His behavior embarrassed five students’b. * Kodomotachi-wa hanashi-o itsu-tsu
Children-Nom
stories-Acc 5-CL

kowagatta
feared(ES)‘Children feared five stories’
In the previous literature about psych verbs based on fine-grained semantics, it has been said
that ES type and EO types are different with respect to an aspectual property (Grimshaw(1990), van Voorst (1992), Pesetsky (1995)); ES type verbs are stative verbs, and EO typeverbs are causative verbs which describe a delimited event.
(76)

a.
b.

Bill fears ghosts
Ghosts frighten Bill

(ES)
(EO)

(Grimshaw 1990)

Based on this point of view, a sentence with an EO type psych verb, “Ghosts frighten Bill,” isinterpreted as [Ghostsi CAUSE [Bill fears PROi ]]. Important thing for us here is thatinterpretation of causal event is a delimited one with an inherent endpoint. Now let us
suppose that the structure of EO type verbs contains lower DelP between vP and VP. Basedon this assumption, the structures of EO type verbs with FNQ are represented as below.
(77) a. (75)ab. (75)b-224-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

EO type verbs are interpreted as causative, and there is a lower DelP, which satisfies thepresupposition that there is a endpoint of the relevant event. As for ES type verb in (77)b, thesentence is not acceptable because of absence of DelP in the structure with ES type verbs.
6. Conclusion
We have seen that Japanese Floating Numeral Quantifier is an aspectual-sensitive
pheNomenon. FNQ is licensed by the “delimited” property assuming a particular temporal
endpoint. These delimited properties are given by inherent aspectual property of predicateslike as stage-individual level distinction or an overt delimiting lexical element. This analysis
can be applied to several kinds of data which is problematic for Miyagawa’s mutual
c-command analysis. There are cases where it is allowed FNQ from subject NP of transitive
verb and unergative subject, and it is not allowed FNQ from transitive subject, unaccusative
subject, and passive subject. These data show us that the distribution of FNQ in Japanesecannot be explained only by the syntactic configuration in terms of constituency. Based on
the analysis with delimitedness restriction, we can give a unified analysis about the
distributions which are counterexamples for Miyagawa’s mutual c-command analyses.
The ungrammatical cases with FNQ are not acceptable because of a presupposition
given by the measure function µ. The function µ is a kind of presupposition trigger, and sucha presupposition should be satisfied on the way of derivation. Presupposition is not a vague
conception, but it comes from a particular calculation based on an appropriate syntactic
structure and compositional semantics. This standpoint follows the strategy of “localist”
approach of pragmatics, where pragmatic effect, such as presupposition, should be calculated
based on structure. Japanese FNQ would be a breakthrough to investigate the possibility of
the localist approach of pragmatics.

References
Akiyama, Masahiro. 1994. On Quantifire Floating. English Linguistics 11:100-122.
Arad, Maya. 1999. What counts as a Class? The Case of Psych Verbs. In MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics, 1-23. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Baltin, Mark. 1978. Toward a Theory of Movement Rules, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 6:291-352.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In The Second Glot International
State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, ed. L. Cheng and R. Sybesma, 107-148.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 17.
Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers, Rutgers.
Cartwright, Helen. 1975. Amount and measures of amounts. Nous 9 9:143-164.

-225-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in
French, Dutch and English. Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
Dowty, David, and Belinda Brodie. 1984. The semantics of "floated" quantifiers in atransformationless grammar. In The Proceedings of the 3rd West Coast Conference ofFormal Linguistics, ed. S. Mackaye and M. T. Wescoat M. Cobler, 75-90.
Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Semantic conditions on surface structure. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.
Fukui, Naoki. & Margaret Speas. 1986. Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
8:128-172.
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1991a. Generalized Floating Quantifiers, Ph.D . dissertation, University of
Arizona.
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1991b. Phrase Structure Grammar, Montague semantics, and floating
quantifiers in Japanese. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:581-628.
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1993. Model theoretic semantics for Japanese floating quantifiers and theirscope properties. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2:213-228.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hamano, Shoko. 1997. On Japanese quantifier floating. In Functional Linguistics, ed. A. Kamio,
173-197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harada, Shin-ichi. 1976. Quantifier Float as a Relational Role. Metropolitan Linguistics 1.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hoeksema, Jacob. 1996. Floating quantifiers, partitives, and distributivity. In Partitives: Studies on the
Syntax and Semantics of Partitive and Related Constructions, ed. J. Hoeksema, 57-106.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ishii, Yasuo. 1999. A note on floating quantifiers in Japanese. In Linguistics: In Search of the Human
Mind, A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, ed. M. Muraki and E. Iwamoto, 236-267. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantics Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Junker, Marie-Odile. 1995. Syntax et Semantique des Quantifieurs Flottants Tous et Chacun:
Distributivite en Semantique Conceptuelle. Geneve: Librarie Droz.
Kawashima, Ruriko. 1998. The structure of extended nominal phrases: the scrambling of numerals,
approximate numerals, and quantifiers in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:1-26.
Kitagawa, Yoshisha. 1986. Subjects in {J}apanese and {E}nglish, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Koopman, Hilda and Sportiche, Dominique. 1986. A note on long extraction in Vata and the ECP.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:357-374.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates. In The Generic Book, ed. G.
Carlson &F.J. Pelletier. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb. In Phrase Structure and the
Lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origin of telicity. In Events and Grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 197-235.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Danwa no Bunpou [Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taisyukan.

-226-

Aspectual Restriction for Floating Quantifiers (T. Tanaka)

Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1988. Whether We Agree or Not. Lingvisticae Investigatioinnes 12:1-47.
Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 2003. The Semantics of -teiru in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics
11:367-380.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1971. Meaning and the Eglish Verb: Longman.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary lnvestigation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice theoretic approach. In
Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, ed. R. B 隔 erle, Schwarze, C. and vonStechow, A, 302-323. Berlin: de Gruyer.
Maling, Joan. 1976. Notes on Quantifier Postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 7:708-718.
May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
McClure, William. 1993. A Semantic Parameter: The Progressive in Japanese and English.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3:254-270.
Mihara, Ken-ichi. 1994. Nihongo-no Tougo Kouzou ("Syntactic Structure in Japanese"): Shohakusya.
Mihara, Ken-ichi. 2004. Aspect Kaishaku to Tougo Gensyo ("Aspectual Interpertation and Syntactic
Phenomena"). Tokyo: Shohakusya.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. In Syntax and Semantics 22. New
York: Academic Press.
Miyamoto, Yoichi. 1996. Floating Quantifiers and the Stage / Individual-Level Distinction.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5:321-335.
Nakamura, Masaru. 1983. ANontransformational Approach to Quantifier Floating Phenomena.
Studies in English Linguistics 11:1-10.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2004. Domains of Measurement: Formal Properties of Non-Split/Split Quantifier
Constructions, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke, and Asako Uchibori. 1991. Japanese Bare NPs and Syntax-Semantics
Correspoindences in Quantification. Ms. Osaka University and University of Connecticut,
Storrs.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1998. The Ambiguity of the -te iru Form in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 7:87-120.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1996. Rentaisokurenyou? (Adnominal Rule for Ad-predicate?) (3), (4).
Nihongo-gaku (Studies in Japanese) 1, 2.
Pesetsky, David Michael. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Ritter, Elizabeth. and Sara Thomas. Rosen. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax: The Projection of
Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors: CSLI.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A'-movement. In Alternative Conceptionsof Phrase Structure, 182 ﾐ 200. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002a. The grammar of measurement. The Proceedings of Semantics and
Linguistics Theory XII:225-245.
Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1997. On the Primacy of Progressive Over Resultative State: the Case of Japanese-teiru. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6:512-524.

-227-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent
structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425-449.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Nihongo-no Suuryoshi Yuri-ni Tsuite [On Japanese Floating Quantifiers]. In
Gekkan-Gengo. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 2001. Nitieigo-no Kinooteki Koobun Bunseki [A Functional Analysis of English andJapanese Constructions]. Tokyo: Hoo Syoboo.
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1991. Inner Aspect and the Structure of VP. Proceedings of North Eastern
Linguistic Society 12.
Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1994. Event Phrase and a Theory of Functional Categories. Proceedings of the1994 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Society:559-570.
van Voorst, Jan. 1992. The Aspectual Semantics of Psychological Verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy
15:65-92.
Yamashita, Hideaki. 2002. On the So-called RFNQ-Scramblings in Japanese. In Proceedings of FAJL
3: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics #41, ed. Daniel Harbour Maria Cristina Cuervo, Ken
Hiraiwa, and Shinichiro Ishihara. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yatabe, Shuichi. 1990. Quantifier floating in Japanese and the theta-hierarchy. In CLS 26, ed.
Manuela Noske Michael Ziolkowski, and Karen Deaton, 437-451. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1992. The Lexical Encoding of Scope Relations among Arguments. In
Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon, ed. Timothy Stowell and Eric Wehrli,211-258. New York: Academic Press.

-228-